Three mentions in the Calcutta High Court, and still no urgent hearing since September, his counsel told the Supreme Court. The Court has now asked the High Court to consider Abhishek Banerjee’s Plea for interim relief against media reporting on investigations against him once it reopens on November 16.
New Delhi: When the Calcutta High Court reopens on November 16, Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee may bring his plea against media reporting on investigations and cases against him to its notice straight away; the Supreme Court permitted this on Tuesday, November 3, and requested the High Court to consider his application for interim relief [Abhishek Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors.].
The matter was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. The Court did not examine the merits of the plea.
No restraint, and no view on the reports
The Bench did not pass any restraint on reporting. It allowed Banerjee to mention the matter before the High Court immediately on its reopening on November 16 and requested the High Court to take up his application for interim relief. The Supreme Court expressed no view on whether the reports complained of are lawful or on the investigations themselves.
Banerjee has not been convicted in any of the matters under investigation, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Any allegations against him remain untested.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Does Not Take Up Abhishek Banerjee Plea On Disqualification Of 20 TMC MPs
What Banerjee sought, and why he came to the Supreme Court
Banerjee wants a restraint on media reporting about matters under investigation against him, contending that the dissemination of investigation-related information is leading to a media trial. He approached the Supreme Court saying the Calcutta High Court had declined to hear his writ petition urgently. These are his contentions; the investigating agencies and the media houses concerned have not yet been heard on them.
Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, for Banerjee, told the Bench that the writ petition was filed in the High Court in September, but was found not to fall within the roster of the Bench before which it was placed. He said he had mentioned it three times before the High Court, while articles concerning Banerjee continued to be published daily.
The argument on media trials
Alam argued that repeated judicial pronouncements hold that the presumption of innocence cannot be undermined through media trials. He said Banerjee was seeking take-down orders against the reports, that all relevant steps had been taken before the High Court, and that he would again request the High Court for urgent consideration.
Why the hearing matters
Pleas to restrain reporting on pending investigations set two protected interests against each other: a suspect’s right to a fair trial and reputation under Article 21, and the freedom of the press and the public’s right to know under Article 19(1)(a). Courts have generally preferred narrowly tailored remedies over blanket gag orders.
By sending the matter back to the High Court with a request for early consideration, rather than deciding it, the Supreme Court has left that balance to be struck first by the court where the writ petition is pending.
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam for Abhishek Banerjee